SUFFERING BRUTALITY TO SAVE ANCIENT REDWOODS


(EDITOR'S NOTE: Charles Levendosky, editorial page editor of the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune,
has a national reputation for First Amendment commentary.)

DISTRIBUTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES
By CHARLES LEVENDOSKY
c. 1997 Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune

The use of pepper spray against non-violent demonstrators in Humboldt County has almost eclipsed the reason for their protest --- the logging of
old-growth redwoods in California's Headwaters Redwood Forest, near Eureka.

Currently there are six groves of ancient redwoods remaining in the 60,000-acre Headwaters Forest. Only two will be protected under the state-federal agreement with the corporation that owns the groves.

The Headwaters Deal, as the agreement is called, fragments this rare, ancient forest habitat and allows Pacific Lumber to log more than 50,000 acres of the virgin forest.

The company wants to cut all the old-growth redwoods in the other four groves within 15 years. Some of these trees are estimated to be from 1,000
to 3,000 years old. And that's what the demonstrators are protesting.

How do you replace a healthy 3,000 year old tree? How do you replace stands of ancient redwoods that have fallen to chainsaws? There aren't many left
in the world.

Cutting down thousand-year-old redwoods provoked the protest. The lack of a long-term, ecologically responsible forest plan provoked it.

Swabbing pepper spray in the eyes of passive demonstrators pricked the conscience of the nation. Television news aired segments of the law
enforcement videotape that shows a Humboldt sheriff deputy soak a cotton swab in pepper spray and wipe it across the eyelids of four women sitting
on a floor in a circle.

Viewers saw the effects of the burning pain --- the cries, the coughing, the shaking. Viewers didn't see the felled redwoods.

Twenty-year-old Noel Tendick did see the redwoods. He is another one of the Headwaters protesters who had both his eyes bathed in pepper spray.

"I became aware of what a crucial fight it was to save these last beautiful trees. And felt really compelled to be involved," he said in a Nov. 20
interview.

On Oct. 3, Tendick and a friend, Mike McCurdy, took their protest to the Bear Creek watershed of the Headwaters Forest. They linked their arms
together with metal sleeves through the treads of an unoccupied bulldozer parked by a logging road.

At first, Tendick spoke about the incident in a flat, unemotional tone: "The police arrived, dragged Q-tips of pepper spray across our eyes, and
when we refused to unlock, gave us full sprays within inches of our faces. And then when we still refused to unlock had to cut us out with grinders."

Then he focused on the blast of the pepper spray, "It was a steady stream across both eyes. I could feel them standing very close to me, and the
intensity of the spray. I could feel it was coming from a very short distance.

"There was immediate burning --- agonizing, sheer pain that I've never experienced anything like before. I cried out."

Tendick's voice gathered passion when he reflected on his experience with the Humboldt County sheriff deputies: "When they sprayed us, they gave us
this rage and we're sharing that with people. And people who don't even know us are feeling outrage when they see what happens to us. But I just
really want them to feel outraged that this forest is being plundered and destroyed.

"The greatest hope I can have from this is that our suffering will galvanize people and bring them into this fight --- not only against police brutality, but also against clearcutting one of our last ancient heritages."

Tendick is one of the nine protesters who have filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department and the Eureka Police Department. There were three separate incidents in which peaceful demonstrators felt the lash of chemical spray. All the protesters in the lawsuit have felt the lacerating sting of pepper spray as it burned their eyes and stifled their breathing.

On Nov. 14, the attorneys for the protesters asked U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker to grant a temporary ban on the use of pepper spray against non-violent demonstrators. The judge refused. He said the ban would only be justified if the case were sharply tipped in favor of the protesters. Walker doesn't think it is. He will wait until he hears all the evidence in a full trial.

The protesters' lawsuit claims the use of pepper spray was unnecessary and unlawful. And its application constitutes unreasonable use of force with the intent to inflict injury and punishment.

On Nov. 1, the FBI began a preliminary investigation into whether the civil rights of the protesters was violated.

On Nov. 4, Amnesty International issued a press release calling the use of pepper spray against the peaceful demonstrators "degrading" and "tantamount to torture."
 
California State Attorney General Dan Lungren, in a four-page letter to a state senator dated Nov. 17, wrote an analysis of Humboldt County's unusual
use of pepper spray describing it by its active ingredient Oleoresin Capsicum: "The direct swabbing of OC in the eyes of an individual is neither supported nor directly addressed by training. ... both swabbing of OC onto the eyes and the close spraying of OC ... are not accepted police
community practices."

Humboldt County law enforcement officials have responded to the lawsuit and the national attention by filing an additional charge against the four
women demonstrators who had their eyes doused with pepper spray while seated in Rep. Frank Riggs' office in Eureka.

This new charge adds to the trespass, interfering with a lawful business, and obstruction of a police officer charges. It specifies that the
anti-logging protesters did "maliciously deface, damage, or destroy" property, meaning the rug in Riggs' office.

One of the women, when hit with the pain of the pepper spray, involuntarily urinated. And that, according to the district attorney, constitutes a
malicious defacing of the rug.

And if the police had struck the protesters with their batons and the women bled on the floor, would that too be considered malicious defacement?

In the defense of brutality, one becomes absurd.

Too bad the public can see that, but Humboldt law enforcement officials cannot. But only a roused public will halt this outrage.


Back to Media Bibliography